Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=75.886, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=311]=212, stp[ipn_0]=72.8731).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=67.1938, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=296]=46, stp[ipn_0]=65.9524).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2381

control, N = 1191

treatment, N = 1191

p-value2

age

236

51.30 ± 13.02 (23 - 75)

50.76 ± 13.39 (23 - 75)

51.82 ± 12.69 (28 - 75)

0.532

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

238

0.316

f

194 (82%)

94 (79%)

100 (84%)

m

44 (18%)

25 (21%)

19 (16%)

occupation

238

day_training

6 (2.5%)

2 (1.7%)

4 (3.4%)

full_time

26 (11%)

13 (11%)

13 (11%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (13%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.7%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.5%)

part_time

42 (18%)

23 (19%)

19 (16%)

retired

57 (24%)

26 (22%)

31 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.4%)

4 (3.4%)

4 (3.4%)

shelter

4 (1.7%)

4 (3.4%)

0 (0%)

student

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.7%)

t_and_e

4 (1.7%)

3 (2.5%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

53 (22%)

28 (24%)

25 (21%)

marital

238

0.875

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.7%)

divore

26 (11%)

14 (12%)

12 (10%)

in_relationship

4 (1.7%)

2 (1.7%)

2 (1.7%)

married

71 (30%)

33 (28%)

38 (32%)

none

113 (47%)

58 (49%)

55 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.3%)

2 (1.7%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (8.0%)

10 (8.4%)

9 (7.6%)

edu

238

0.622

bachelor

48 (20%)

20 (17%)

28 (24%)

diploma

40 (17%)

24 (20%)

16 (13%)

hd_ad

6 (2.5%)

4 (3.4%)

2 (1.7%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

16 (6.7%)

9 (7.6%)

7 (5.9%)

primary

20 (8.4%)

9 (7.6%)

11 (9.2%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (10%)

secondary_4_5

65 (27%)

30 (25%)

35 (29%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.5%)

6 (5.0%)

7 (5.9%)

fam_income

238

10001_12000

8 (3.4%)

2 (1.7%)

6 (5.0%)

12001_14000

11 (4.6%)

4 (3.4%)

7 (5.9%)

14001_16000

12 (5.0%)

4 (3.4%)

8 (6.7%)

16001_18000

5 (2.1%)

3 (2.5%)

2 (1.7%)

18001_20000

10 (4.2%)

7 (5.9%)

3 (2.5%)

20001_above

40 (17%)

24 (20%)

16 (13%)

2001_4000

35 (15%)

17 (14%)

18 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (13%)

14 (12%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

21 (8.8%)

12 (10%)

9 (7.6%)

8001_10000

20 (8.4%)

11 (9.2%)

9 (7.6%)

below_2000

45 (19%)

21 (18%)

24 (20%)

medication

238

213 (89%)

106 (89%)

107 (90%)

0.833

onset_duration

236

15.15 ± 10.98 (0 - 63)

14.84 ± 11.30 (0 - 56)

15.47 ± 10.69 (0 - 63)

0.658

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

234

36.24 ± 14.75 (-18 - 72)

35.84 ± 13.75 (10 - 72)

36.63 ± 15.74 (-18 - 68)

0.682

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2381

control, N = 1191

treatment, N = 1191

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

238

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.08 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

0.456

recovery_stage_b

238

17.93 ± 2.95 (4 - 24)

18.01 ± 3.13 (4 - 24)

17.85 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)

0.677

ras_confidence

238

29.97 ± 5.63 (9 - 45)

29.82 ± 5.76 (9 - 45)

30.13 ± 5.51 (9 - 45)

0.671

ras_willingness

238

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

11.61 ± 2.11 (5 - 15)

11.70 ± 2.18 (3 - 15)

0.763

ras_goal

238

17.40 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

17.23 ± 3.34 (5 - 25)

17.58 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

0.415

ras_reliance

238

13.25 ± 2.87 (4 - 20)

13.16 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)

13.34 ± 2.91 (4 - 20)

0.636

ras_domination

238

9.82 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

10.02 ± 2.44 (3 - 15)

9.62 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)

0.211

symptom

238

30.74 ± 9.96 (14 - 70)

31.36 ± 10.62 (14 - 70)

30.12 ± 9.27 (14 - 56)

0.337

slof_work

238

22.17 ± 4.63 (10 - 30)

22.27 ± 4.36 (12 - 30)

22.08 ± 4.90 (10 - 30)

0.748

slof_relationship

238

25.08 ± 5.76 (9 - 35)

24.68 ± 5.82 (9 - 35)

25.48 ± 5.69 (11 - 35)

0.286

satisfaction

238

20.49 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

19.90 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

21.08 ± 7.20 (5 - 35)

0.210

mhc_emotional

238

10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)

10.77 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

10.96 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)

0.705

mhc_social

238

15.33 ± 6.01 (5 - 30)

15.34 ± 6.08 (5 - 30)

15.32 ± 5.96 (5 - 30)

0.974

mhc_psychological

238

21.87 ± 6.88 (6 - 36)

21.84 ± 6.80 (6 - 36)

21.90 ± 6.98 (6 - 36)

0.948

resilisnce

238

16.66 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

16.29 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

17.02 ± 4.68 (6 - 30)

0.214

social_provision

238

13.60 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.74 (5 - 20)

13.95 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)

0.050

els_value_living

238

17.07 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)

16.88 ± 3.13 (6 - 25)

17.25 ± 3.21 (5 - 25)

0.370

els_life_fulfill

238

12.84 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)

12.50 ± 3.44 (4 - 20)

13.17 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

0.128

els

238

29.90 ± 6.02 (9 - 45)

29.39 ± 6.05 (11 - 45)

30.42 ± 5.97 (9 - 45)

0.186

social_connect

238

27.05 ± 9.11 (8 - 48)

27.56 ± 9.00 (8 - 48)

26.53 ± 9.23 (8 - 48)

0.382

shs_agency

238

14.45 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

13.97 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

14.92 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

0.149

shs_pathway

238

15.91 ± 4.23 (3 - 24)

15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24)

16.39 ± 4.05 (4 - 24)

0.080

shs

238

30.35 ± 8.85 (6 - 48)

29.40 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.30 ± 8.65 (7 - 48)

0.098

esteem

238

12.76 ± 1.68 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.75 (9 - 20)

12.71 ± 1.62 (10 - 20)

0.701

mlq_search

238

14.79 ± 3.50 (3 - 21)

14.49 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)

15.09 ± 3.43 (3 - 21)

0.182

mlq_presence

238

13.50 ± 4.27 (3 - 21)

13.31 ± 4.17 (3 - 21)

13.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 21)

0.496

mlq

238

28.29 ± 6.97 (6 - 42)

27.80 ± 6.95 (6 - 42)

28.78 ± 7.00 (6 - 42)

0.278

empower

238

19.26 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

19.00 ± 4.46 (6 - 30)

19.51 ± 4.49 (6 - 30)

0.377

ismi_resistance

238

14.39 ± 2.63 (5 - 20)

14.42 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

0.844

ismi_discrimation

238

11.75 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)

11.76 ± 3.03 (5 - 20)

11.74 ± 3.11 (5 - 20)

0.966

sss_affective

238

10.49 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.57 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.727

sss_behavior

238

10.14 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.22 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.07 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

0.759

sss_cognitive

238

8.90 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)

8.74 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

9.07 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.514

sss

238

29.53 ± 10.70 (9 - 54)

29.36 ± 10.59 (9 - 54)

29.71 ± 10.85 (9 - 54)

0.804

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.111

2.98, 3.42

group

control

treatment

-0.118

0.157

-0.426, 0.191

0.455

time_point

1st

2nd

0.035

0.147

-0.254, 0.323

0.815

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.309

0.210

-0.104, 0.721

0.144

Pseudo R square

0.009

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.273

17.5, 18.5

group

control

treatment

-0.160

0.386

-0.916, 0.597

0.680

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.225

0.280

-0.773, 0.323

0.422

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.878

0.401

0.093, 1.66

0.030

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.523

28.8, 30.8

group

control

treatment

0.311

0.739

-1.14, 1.76

0.674

time_point

1st

2nd

0.668

0.476

-0.264, 1.60

0.162

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.30

0.682

-0.033, 2.64

0.058

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.194

11.2, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.084

0.274

-0.453, 0.621

0.759

time_point

1st

2nd

0.063

0.207

-0.343, 0.469

0.762

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.317

0.297

-0.264, 0.899

0.286

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.305

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.353

0.432

-0.493, 1.20

0.414

time_point

1st

2nd

0.298

0.301

-0.292, 0.889

0.324

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.559

0.431

-0.287, 1.40

0.197

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.268

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.176

0.379

-0.567, 0.920

0.642

time_point

1st

2nd

0.249

0.253

-0.246, 0.744

0.326

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.570

0.362

-0.139, 1.28

0.117

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.0

0.223

9.58, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.395

0.315

-1.01, 0.222

0.211

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.034

0.251

-0.526, 0.457

0.892

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.894

0.359

0.190, 1.60

0.014

Pseudo R square

0.014

symptom

(Intercept)

31.4

0.912

29.6, 33.1

group

control

treatment

-1.24

1.289

-3.77, 1.28

0.336

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.13

0.787

-2.67, 0.415

0.154

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.252

1.127

-2.46, 1.96

0.824

Pseudo R square

0.008

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.420

21.4, 23.1

group

control

treatment

-0.193

0.594

-1.36, 0.971

0.745

time_point

1st

2nd

0.264

0.405

-0.530, 1.06

0.515

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.466

0.580

-0.671, 1.60

0.423

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.7

0.526

23.6, 25.7

group

control

treatment

0.798

0.744

-0.660, 2.26

0.284

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.106

0.505

-1.10, 0.885

0.835

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.783

0.724

-0.635, 2.20

0.281

Pseudo R square

0.011

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

0.663

18.6, 21.2

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.938

-0.662, 3.01

0.211

time_point

1st

2nd

0.826

0.611

-0.371, 2.02

0.178

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.358

0.875

-1.36, 2.07

0.683

Pseudo R square

0.013

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.8

0.344

10.1, 11.4

group

control

treatment

0.185

0.486

-0.768, 1.14

0.704

time_point

1st

2nd

0.376

0.293

-0.199, 0.951

0.202

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.111

0.420

-0.935, 0.713

0.791

Pseudo R square

0.002

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.3

0.561

14.2, 16.4

group

control

treatment

-0.025

0.794

-1.58, 1.53

0.975

time_point

1st

2nd

0.653

0.499

-0.326, 1.63

0.193

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.003

0.715

-1.41, 1.40

0.997

Pseudo R square

0.003

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.649

20.6, 23.1

group

control

treatment

0.059

0.918

-1.74, 1.86

0.949

time_point

1st

2nd

1.01

0.580

-0.130, 2.14

0.085

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.295

0.831

-1.92, 1.33

0.723

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.405

15.5, 17.1

group

control

treatment

0.723

0.572

-0.399, 1.84

0.208

time_point

1st

2nd

0.752

0.404

-0.039, 1.54

0.064

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.745

0.578

-0.388, 1.88

0.199

Pseudo R square

0.028

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.260

12.7, 13.8

group

control

treatment

0.706

0.368

-0.016, 1.43

0.056

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.191

0.258

-0.697, 0.315

0.461

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.514

0.370

-0.212, 1.24

0.167

Pseudo R square

0.026

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.294

16.3, 17.5

group

control

treatment

0.370

0.415

-0.444, 1.18

0.374

time_point

1st

2nd

0.347

0.284

-0.210, 0.904

0.224

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.317

0.407

-0.481, 1.11

0.438

Pseudo R square

0.012

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.5

0.306

11.9, 13.1

group

control

treatment

0.664

0.433

-0.184, 1.51

0.126

time_point

1st

2nd

0.228

0.277

-0.315, 0.772

0.412

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.327

0.398

-0.452, 1.11

0.412

Pseudo R square

0.017

els

(Intercept)

29.4

0.556

28.3, 30.5

group

control

treatment

1.03

0.786

-0.506, 2.57

0.189

time_point

1st

2nd

0.605

0.485

-0.345, 1.56

0.214

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.612

0.695

-0.750, 1.97

0.380

Pseudo R square

0.016

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.6

0.846

25.9, 29.2

group

control

treatment

-1.03

1.197

-3.38, 1.31

0.388

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.125

0.721

-1.54, 1.29

0.862

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.87

1.033

-4.89, -0.842

0.006

Pseudo R square

0.024

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.0

0.465

13.1, 14.9

group

control

treatment

0.941

0.657

-0.347, 2.23

0.153

time_point

1st

2nd

0.404

0.394

-0.367, 1.18

0.306

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.397

0.564

-0.709, 1.50

0.483

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.377

14.7, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.958

0.533

-0.088, 2.00

0.074

time_point

1st

2nd

0.585

0.350

-0.101, 1.27

0.096

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.233

0.502

-0.750, 1.22

0.643

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

0.803

27.8, 31.0

group

control

treatment

1.90

1.136

-0.328, 4.13

0.096

time_point

1st

2nd

0.999

0.682

-0.338, 2.34

0.145

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.611

0.978

-1.31, 2.53

0.533

Pseudo R square

0.020

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.147

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.084

0.207

-0.490, 0.322

0.685

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.130

0.186

-0.495, 0.235

0.486

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.087

0.267

-0.435, 0.610

0.743

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.317

13.9, 15.1

group

control

treatment

0.605

0.448

-0.273, 1.48

0.178

time_point

1st

2nd

0.859

0.353

0.166, 1.55

0.016

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.766

0.506

-1.76, 0.226

0.132

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.387

12.6, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.378

0.548

-0.695, 1.45

0.490

time_point

1st

2nd

0.839

0.402

0.052, 1.63

0.038

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.044

0.575

-1.17, 1.08

0.940

Pseudo R square

0.010

mlq

(Intercept)

27.8

0.639

26.5, 29.1

group

control

treatment

0.983

0.903

-0.788, 2.75

0.277

time_point

1st

2nd

1.70

0.672

0.381, 3.01

0.012

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.801

0.962

-2.69, 1.08

0.406

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.416

18.2, 19.8

group

control

treatment

0.513

0.588

-0.640, 1.67

0.384

time_point

1st

2nd

0.887

0.392

0.120, 1.65

0.025

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.257

0.561

-1.36, 0.843

0.648

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.237

14.0, 14.9

group

control

treatment

-0.067

0.335

-0.724, 0.590

0.841

time_point

1st

2nd

0.279

0.280

-0.270, 0.828

0.320

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.600

0.401

-0.186, 1.39

0.136

Pseudo R square

0.015

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.283

11.2, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.017

0.400

-0.801, 0.767

0.967

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.445

0.328

-1.09, 0.197

0.176

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.644

0.469

-1.56, 0.276

0.172

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.339

9.74, 11.1

group

control

treatment

0.168

0.480

-0.773, 1.11

0.727

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.422

0.314

-1.04, 0.193

0.181

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.684

0.450

-1.56, 0.198

0.131

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.345

9.54, 10.9

group

control

treatment

-0.151

0.488

-1.11, 0.806

0.757

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.649

0.311

-1.26, -0.040

0.038

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.115

0.445

-0.988, 0.757

0.796

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.74

0.344

8.06, 9.41

group

control

treatment

0.328

0.487

-0.627, 1.28

0.502

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.542

0.314

-1.16, 0.074

0.087

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.573

0.450

-1.46, 0.310

0.205

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss

(Intercept)

29.4

0.970

27.5, 31.3

group

control

treatment

0.345

1.372

-2.34, 3.03

0.802

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.59

0.805

-3.17, -0.012

0.050

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.32

1.154

-3.58, 0.939

0.254

Pseudo R square

0.011

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.98, 3.42], t(374) = 28.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19], t(374) = -0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32], t(374) = 0.23, p = 0.815; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72], t(374) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.47, 18.54], t(374) = 65.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.60], t(374) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.32], t(374) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.09, 1.66], t(374) = 2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.03, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.82 (95% CI [28.79, 30.84], t(374) = 57.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.76], t(374) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.60], t(374) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.64], t(374) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-5.71e-03, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.61 (95% CI [11.23, 11.99], t(374) = 59.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.62], t(374) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.47], t(374) = 0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.90], t(374) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.23 (95% CI [16.63, 17.83], t(374) = 56.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.20], t(374) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.89], t(374) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.40], t(374) = 1.29, p = 0.195; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.63, 13.69], t(374) = 49.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.92], t(374) = 0.47, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.74], t(374) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.28], t(374) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.02 (95% CI [9.58, 10.45], t(374) = 45.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.22], t(374) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.46], t(374) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [0.19, 1.60], t(374) = 2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [0.08, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.36 (95% CI [29.57, 33.15], t(374) = 34.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.77, 1.28], t(374) = -0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.41], t(374) = -1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-2.46, 1.96], t(374) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.27 (95% CI [21.45, 23.09], t(374) = 53.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.97], t(374) = -0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.06], t(374) = 0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.60], t(374) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.68 (95% CI [23.65, 25.71], t(374) = 46.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.26], t(374) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.88], t(374) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.20], t(374) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.90 (95% CI [18.60, 21.20], t(374) = 30.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.01], t(374) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.02], t(374) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.07], t(374) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.77 (95% CI [10.10, 11.45], t(374) = 31.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.14], t(374) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.95], t(374) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.71], t(374) = -0.26, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.34 (95% CI [14.24, 16.44], t(374) = 27.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.53], t(374) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.63], t(374) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.77e-03, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.40], t(374) = -3.87e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = -4.62e-04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.84 (95% CI [20.57, 23.11], t(374) = 33.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.86], t(374) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.14], t(374) = 1.74, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.92, 1.33], t(374) = -0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.50, 17.09], t(374) = 40.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(374) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.54], t(374) = 1.86, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-8.72e-03, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.88], t(374) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.73, 13.75], t(374) = 50.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.43], t(374) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-5.53e-03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.32], t(374) = -0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.24], t(374) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(374) = 57.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.18], t(374) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.90], t(374) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.11], t(374) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.50 (95% CI [11.90, 13.10], t(374) = 40.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.51], t(374) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.77], t(374) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.11], t(374) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.39 (95% CI [28.30, 30.48], t(374) = 52.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.57], t(374) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.56], t(374) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.97], t(374) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.56 (95% CI [25.90, 29.22], t(374) = 32.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.31], t(374) = -0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.29], t(374) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.87, 95% CI [-4.89, -0.84], t(374) = -2.77, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.52, -0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [13.06, 14.89], t(374) = 30.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.23], t(374) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.18], t(374) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.50], t(374) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(374) = 40.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.00], t(374) = 1.80, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.27], t(374) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.22], t(374) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.83, 30.98], t(374) = 36.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.33, 4.13], t(374) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.34], t(374) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.53], t(374) = 0.62, p = 0.532; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.51, 13.09], t(374) = 87.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.32], t(374) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.24], t(374) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61], t(374) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.49 (95% CI [13.87, 15.11], t(374) = 45.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.48], t(374) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.17, 1.55], t(374) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.05, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-1.76, 0.23], t(374) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.55, 14.07], t(374) = 34.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.45], t(374) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.05, 1.63], t(374) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.01, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.08], t(374) = -0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [26.55, 29.05], t(374) = 43.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.75], t(374) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [0.38, 3.01], t(374) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.05, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-2.69, 1.08], t(374) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.18, 19.82], t(374) = 45.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.67], t(374) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [0.12, 1.65], t(374) = 2.27, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.03, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.84], t(374) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.96, 14.88], t(374) = 60.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.59], t(374) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.83], t(374) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.39], t(374) = 1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.20, 12.31], t(374) = 41.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.77], t(374) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.20], t(374) = -1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.28], t(374) = -1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.74, 11.07], t(374) = 30.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.11], t(374) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.19], t(374) = -1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.20], t(374) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.54, 10.90], t(374) = 29.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.81], t(374) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.26, -0.04], t(374) = -2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.76], t(374) = -0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.74 (95% CI [8.06, 9.41], t(374) = 25.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.28], t(374) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.07], t(374) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.31], t(374) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.36 (95% CI [27.46, 31.26], t(374) = 30.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.03], t(374) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.17, -0.01], t(374) = -1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, -1.10e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.58, 0.94], t(374) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,209.063

1,220.883

-601.531

1,203.063

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,209.834

1,233.475

-598.917

1,197.834

5.228

3

0.156

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,836.049

1,847.870

-915.024

1,830.049

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,836.145

1,859.786

-912.072

1,824.145

5.904

3

0.116

ras_confidence

null

3

2,312.764

2,324.584

-1,153.382

2,306.764

ras_confidence

random

6

2,300.343

2,323.984

-1,144.172

2,288.343

18.420

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,583.696

1,595.516

-788.848

1,577.696

ras_willingness

random

6

1,585.865

1,609.506

-786.932

1,573.865

3.831

3

0.280

ras_goal

null

3

1,915.883

1,927.703

-954.941

1,909.883

ras_goal

random

6

1,911.744

1,935.385

-949.872

1,899.744

10.139

3

0.017

ras_reliance

null

3

1,807.643

1,819.464

-900.822

1,801.643

ras_reliance

random

6

1,801.977

1,825.618

-894.989

1,789.977

11.666

3

0.009

ras_domination

null

3

1,708.568

1,720.389

-851.284

1,702.568

ras_domination

random

6

1,703.416

1,727.057

-845.708

1,691.416

11.153

3

0.011

symptom

null

3

2,709.579

2,721.399

-1,351.789

2,703.579

symptom

random

6

2,709.510

2,733.151

-1,348.755

2,697.510

6.069

3

0.108

slof_work

null

3

2,146.339

2,158.159

-1,070.169

2,140.339

slof_work

random

6

2,148.802

2,172.443

-1,068.401

2,136.802

3.536

3

0.316

slof_relationship

null

3

2,316.636

2,328.456

-1,155.318

2,310.636

slof_relationship

random

6

2,318.688

2,342.329

-1,153.344

2,306.688

3.947

3

0.267

satisfaction

null

3

2,485.553

2,497.374

-1,239.777

2,479.553

satisfaction

random

6

2,484.167

2,507.808

-1,236.083

2,472.167

7.387

3

0.061

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,961.720

1,973.541

-977.860

1,955.720

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,965.208

1,988.849

-976.604

1,953.208

2.512

3

0.473

mhc_social

null

3

2,346.071

2,357.891

-1,170.035

2,340.071

mhc_social

random

6

2,348.775

2,372.416

-1,168.387

2,336.775

3.296

3

0.348

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,458.460

2,470.280

-1,226.230

2,452.460

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,460.066

2,483.707

-1,224.033

2,448.066

4.394

3

0.222

resilisnce

null

3

2,141.734

2,153.554

-1,067.867

2,135.734

resilisnce

random

6

2,128.801

2,152.442

-1,058.401

2,116.801

18.932

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,794.794

1,806.615

-894.397

1,788.794

social_provision

random

6

1,792.600

1,816.241

-890.300

1,780.600

8.195

3

0.042

els_value_living

null

3

1,879.325

1,891.145

-936.662

1,873.325

els_value_living

random

6

1,877.332

1,900.973

-932.666

1,865.332

7.993

3

0.046

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,894.489

1,906.309

-944.244

1,888.489

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,892.646

1,916.287

-940.323

1,880.646

7.843

3

0.049

els

null

3

2,339.984

2,351.805

-1,166.992

2,333.984

els

random

6

2,335.960

2,359.601

-1,161.980

2,323.960

10.024

3

0.018

social_connect

null

3

2,662.146

2,673.966

-1,328.073

2,656.146

social_connect

random

6

2,649.585

2,673.226

-1,318.793

2,637.585

18.560

3

0.000

shs_agency

null

3

2,194.448

2,206.268

-1,094.224

2,188.448

shs_agency

random

6

2,192.722

2,216.364

-1,090.361

2,180.722

7.725

3

0.052

shs_pathway

null

3

2,063.333

2,075.154

-1,028.667

2,057.333

shs_pathway

random

6

2,057.429

2,081.070

-1,022.714

2,045.429

11.905

3

0.008

shs

null

3

2,614.257

2,626.077

-1,304.128

2,608.257

shs

random

6

2,609.356

2,632.998

-1,298.678

2,597.356

10.900

3

0.012

esteem

null

3

1,406.611

1,418.432

-700.306

1,400.611

esteem

random

6

1,411.990

1,435.631

-699.995

1,399.990

0.621

3

0.892

mlq_search

null

3

1,969.761

1,981.582

-981.881

1,963.761

mlq_search

random

6

1,969.144

1,992.785

-978.572

1,957.144

6.617

3

0.085

mlq_presence

null

3

2,107.126

2,118.946

-1,050.563

2,101.126

mlq_presence

random

6

2,104.770

2,128.411

-1,046.385

2,092.770

8.355

3

0.039

mlq

null

3

2,491.164

2,502.985

-1,242.582

2,485.164

mlq

random

6

2,488.569

2,512.210

-1,238.285

2,476.569

8.595

3

0.035

empower

null

3

2,137.277

2,149.098

-1,065.639

2,131.277

empower

random

6

2,135.266

2,158.907

-1,061.633

2,123.266

8.012

3

0.046

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,766.280

1,778.100

-880.140

1,760.280

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,761.891

1,785.532

-874.945

1,749.891

10.389

3

0.016

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,898.402

1,910.222

-946.201

1,892.402

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,891.965

1,915.606

-939.982

1,879.965

12.437

3

0.006

sss_affective

null

3

1,983.655

1,995.475

-988.827

1,977.655

sss_affective

random

6

1,976.272

1,999.913

-982.136

1,964.272

13.383

3

0.004

sss_behavior

null

3

1,986.480

1,998.301

-990.240

1,980.480

sss_behavior

random

6

1,982.306

2,005.947

-985.153

1,970.306

10.174

3

0.017

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,992.935

2,004.755

-993.467

1,986.935

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,984.126

2,007.767

-986.063

1,972.126

14.808

3

0.002

sss

null

3

2,756.483

2,768.304

-1,375.242

2,750.483

sss

random

6

2,746.535

2,770.176

-1,367.267

2,734.535

15.949

3

0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

119

3.20 ± 1.21

119

3.08 ± 1.21

0.455

0.124

recovery_stage_a

2nd

73

3.24 ± 1.18

-0.036

69

3.43 ± 1.18

-0.363

0.334

-0.202

recovery_stage_b

1st

119

18.01 ± 2.98

119

17.85 ± 2.98

0.680

0.091

recovery_stage_b

2nd

73

17.78 ± 2.72

0.129

69

18.50 ± 2.70

-0.373

0.115

-0.411

ras_confidence

1st

119

29.82 ± 5.70

119

30.13 ± 5.70

0.674

-0.105

ras_confidence

2nd

73

30.48 ± 5.08

-0.226

69

32.10 ± 5.02

-0.668

0.058

-0.547

ras_willingness

1st

119

11.61 ± 2.11

119

11.70 ± 2.11

0.759

-0.065

ras_willingness

2nd

73

11.68 ± 1.95

-0.048

69

12.08 ± 1.94

-0.293

0.220

-0.309

ras_goal

1st

119

17.23 ± 3.33

119

17.58 ± 3.33

0.414

-0.188

ras_goal

2nd

73

17.53 ± 3.02

-0.159

69

18.44 ± 2.99

-0.456

0.071

-0.485

ras_reliance

1st

119

13.16 ± 2.93

119

13.34 ± 2.93

0.642

-0.112

ras_reliance

2nd

73

13.41 ± 2.63

-0.159

69

14.16 ± 2.60

-0.522

0.090

-0.475

ras_domination

1st

119

10.02 ± 2.43

119

9.62 ± 2.43

0.211

0.250

ras_domination

2nd

73

9.98 ± 2.27

0.022

69

10.48 ± 2.26

-0.544

0.190

-0.315

symptom

1st

119

31.36 ± 9.95

119

30.12 ± 9.95

0.336

0.256

symptom

2nd

73

30.23 ± 8.77

0.232

69

28.74 ± 8.66

0.283

0.307

0.307

slof_work

1st

119

22.27 ± 4.58

119

22.08 ± 4.58

0.745

0.077

slof_work

2nd

73

22.53 ± 4.13

-0.105

69

22.81 ± 4.09

-0.290

0.693

-0.108

slof_relationship

1st

119

24.68 ± 5.74

119

25.48 ± 5.74

0.284

-0.254

slof_relationship

2nd

73

24.58 ± 5.17

0.034

69

26.16 ± 5.12

-0.216

0.068

-0.503

satisfaction

1st

119

19.90 ± 7.23

119

21.08 ± 7.23

0.211

-0.310

satisfaction

2nd

73

20.72 ± 6.46

-0.218

69

22.26 ± 6.39

-0.312

0.156

-0.405

mhc_emotional

1st

119

10.77 ± 3.75

119

10.96 ± 3.75

0.704

-0.102

mhc_emotional

2nd

73

11.15 ± 3.30

-0.207

69

11.22 ± 3.26

-0.146

0.894

-0.041

mhc_social

1st

119

15.34 ± 6.12

119

15.32 ± 6.12

0.975

0.008

mhc_social

2nd

73

16.00 ± 5.43

-0.211

69

15.97 ± 5.37

-0.210

0.975

0.009

mhc_psychological

1st

119

21.84 ± 7.08

119

21.90 ± 7.08

0.949

-0.016

mhc_psychological

2nd

73

22.85 ± 6.28

-0.280

69

22.61 ± 6.21

-0.198

0.822

0.066

resilisnce

1st

119

16.29 ± 4.41

119

17.02 ± 4.41

0.208

-0.287

resilisnce

2nd

73

17.05 ± 4.01

-0.299

69

18.51 ± 3.97

-0.594

0.029

-0.583

social_provision

1st

119

13.24 ± 2.84

119

13.95 ± 2.84

0.056

-0.438

social_provision

2nd

73

13.05 ± 2.58

0.118

69

14.27 ± 2.55

-0.200

0.005

-0.757

els_value_living

1st

119

16.88 ± 3.20

119

17.25 ± 3.20

0.374

-0.209

els_value_living

2nd

73

17.23 ± 2.89

-0.196

69

17.92 ± 2.86

-0.375

0.156

-0.388

els_life_fulfill

1st

119

12.50 ± 3.34

119

13.17 ± 3.34

0.126

-0.386

els_life_fulfill

2nd

73

12.73 ± 2.97

-0.133

69

13.72 ± 2.94

-0.323

0.047

-0.576

els

1st

119

29.39 ± 6.06

119

30.42 ± 6.06

0.189

-0.344

els

2nd

73

29.99 ± 5.35

-0.202

69

31.64 ± 5.29

-0.406

0.066

-0.548

social_connect

1st

119

27.56 ± 9.23

119

26.53 ± 9.23

0.389

0.232

social_connect

2nd

73

27.44 ± 8.12

0.028

69

23.54 ± 8.01

0.671

0.004

0.875

shs_agency

1st

119

13.97 ± 5.07

119

14.92 ± 5.07

0.153

-0.387

shs_agency

2nd

73

14.38 ± 4.45

-0.166

69

15.72 ± 4.40

-0.329

0.073

-0.550

shs_pathway

1st

119

15.43 ± 4.12

119

16.39 ± 4.12

0.074

-0.441

shs_pathway

2nd

73

16.01 ± 3.68

-0.269

69

17.20 ± 3.64

-0.376

0.054

-0.548

shs

1st

119

29.40 ± 8.77

119

31.30 ± 8.77

0.096

-0.450

shs

2nd

73

30.40 ± 7.70

-0.237

69

32.91 ± 7.60

-0.382

0.052

-0.595

esteem

1st

119

12.80 ± 1.60

119

12.71 ± 1.60

0.685

0.070

esteem

2nd

73

12.67 ± 1.54

0.109

69

12.67 ± 1.53

0.036

0.989

-0.003

mlq_search

1st

119

14.49 ± 3.45

119

15.09 ± 3.45

0.178

-0.272

mlq_search

2nd

73

15.35 ± 3.22

-0.386

69

15.18 ± 3.20

-0.041

0.765

0.072

mlq_presence

1st

119

13.31 ± 4.22

119

13.69 ± 4.22

0.490

-0.150

mlq_presence

2nd

73

14.15 ± 3.87

-0.334

69

14.48 ± 3.84

-0.317

0.606

-0.133

mlq

1st

119

27.80 ± 6.97

119

28.78 ± 6.97

0.277

-0.234

mlq

2nd

73

29.50 ± 6.41

-0.403

69

29.68 ± 6.36

-0.213

0.865

-0.043

empower

1st

119

19.00 ± 4.54

119

19.51 ± 4.54

0.384

-0.211

empower

2nd

73

19.89 ± 4.07

-0.364

69

20.14 ± 4.03

-0.259

0.707

-0.105

ismi_resistance

1st

119

14.42 ± 2.59

119

14.35 ± 2.59

0.841

0.038

ismi_resistance

2nd

73

14.70 ± 2.45

-0.157

69

15.23 ± 2.43

-0.495

0.194

-0.300

ismi_discrimation

1st

119

11.76 ± 3.09

119

11.74 ± 3.09

0.967

0.008

ismi_discrimation

2nd

73

11.31 ± 2.91

0.215

69

10.65 ± 2.89

0.525

0.175

0.319

sss_affective

1st

119

10.40 ± 3.70

119

10.57 ± 3.70

0.727

-0.086

sss_affective

2nd

73

9.98 ± 3.31

0.216

69

9.47 ± 3.27

0.567

0.352

0.264

sss_behavior

1st

119

10.22 ± 3.77

119

10.07 ± 3.77

0.757

0.079

sss_behavior

2nd

73

9.57 ± 3.35

0.337

69

9.30 ± 3.31

0.397

0.634

0.138

sss_cognitive

1st

119

8.74 ± 3.76

119

9.07 ± 3.76

0.502

-0.168

sss_cognitive

2nd

73

8.20 ± 3.35

0.278

69

7.95 ± 3.31

0.572

0.661

0.126

sss

1st

119

29.36 ± 10.58

119

29.71 ± 10.58

0.802

-0.069

sss

2nd

73

27.77 ± 9.26

0.320

69

26.79 ± 9.14

0.586

0.527

0.197

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(338.71) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.19)

2st

t(375.98) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.58)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(291.89) = -0.41, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.60)

2st

t(369.28) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.61)

ras_confidence

1st

t(278.29) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)

2st

t(359.83) = 1.90, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.05 to 3.28)

ras_willingness

1st

t(297.92) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.62)

2st

t(371.63) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.04)

ras_goal

1st

t(287.18) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.20)

2st

t(366.77) = 1.81, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.90)

ras_reliance

1st

t(281.82) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.92)

2st

t(362.99) = 1.70, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.61)

ras_domination

1st

t(306.23) = -1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.22)

2st

t(373.73) = 1.31, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.25)

symptom

1st

t(273.38) = -0.96, p = 0.336, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.29)

2st

t(354.34) = -1.02, p = 0.307, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-4.37 to 1.38)

slof_work

1st

t(284.47) = -0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.98)

2st

t(365.00) = 0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.63)

slof_relationship

1st

t(284.00) = 1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.26)

2st

t(364.67) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.28)

satisfaction

1st

t(279.46) = 1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.02)

2st

t(360.95) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.66)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(272.51) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.14)

2st

t(353.21) = 0.13, p = 0.894, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.16)

mhc_social

1st

t(276.10) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.54)

2st

t(357.55) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.75)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(276.56) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.87)

2st

t(358.06) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.30 to 1.83)

resilisnce

1st

t(288.51) = 1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.85)

2st

t(367.55) = 2.19, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.15 to 2.79)

social_provision

1st

t(287.78) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.43)

2st

t(367.13) = 2.83, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.37 to 2.07)

els_value_living

1st

t(284.84) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.19)

2st

t(365.26) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.64)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(277.93) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.52)

2st

t(359.47) = 2.00, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.97)

els

1st

t(274.39) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.58)

2st

t(355.58) = 1.84, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.40)

social_connect

1st

t(272.32) = -0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.32)

2st

t(352.96) = -2.88, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-6.56 to -1.24)

shs_agency

1st

t(271.81) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.24)

2st

t(352.27) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.80)

shs_pathway

1st

t(280.27) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.01)

2st

t(361.67) = 1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.40)

shs

1st

t(272.04) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.14)

2st

t(352.59) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.02 to 5.04)

esteem

1st

t(329.88) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.32)

2st

t(375.85) = 0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.51)

mlq_search

1st

t(304.73) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)

2st

t(373.43) = -0.30, p = 0.765, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.90)

mlq_presence

1st

t(293.56) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.46)

2st

t(370.02) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.61)

mlq

1st

t(295.53) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.76)

2st

t(370.80) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.29)

empower

1st

t(281.81) = 0.87, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.67)

2st

t(362.98) = 0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.59)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(314.81) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.59)

2st

t(374.96) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.34)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(311.27) = -0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.77)

2st

t(374.54) = -1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.30)

sss_affective

1st

t(279.90) = 0.35, p = 0.727, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.11)

2st

t(361.34) = -0.93, p = 0.352, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.57)

sss_behavior

1st

t(277.20) = -0.31, p = 0.757, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.81)

2st

t(358.73) = -0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.83)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(278.55) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.29)

2st

t(360.08) = -0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.85)

sss

1st

t(270.20) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.36 to 3.05)

2st

t(349.99) = -0.63, p = 0.527, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.01 to 2.06)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(184.50) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.05 to 0.64)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(163.19) = 2.27, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.22)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(157.52) = 4.03, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.01 to 2.94)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(165.74) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(161.21) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.47)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(158.98) = 3.16, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(169.32) = 3.34, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.37)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(155.49) = -1.71, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.22)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(160.08) = 1.76, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(159.89) = 1.31, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.70)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(158.00) = 1.89, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.42)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(155.13) = 0.88, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(156.61) = 1.27, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.66)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(156.80) = 1.19, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.89)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(161.77) = 3.61, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.32)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(161.46) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.85)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(160.24) = 2.27, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(157.37) = 1.95, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.12)

els

1st vs 2st

t(155.90) = 2.44, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.20)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(155.05) = -4.04, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.46 to -1.53)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(154.84) = 1.98, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.60)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(158.34) = 2.27, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.53)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(154.93) = 2.30, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.99)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(180.09) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.33)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(168.67) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(163.89) = 1.93, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.61)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(164.73) = 1.30, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.26)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(158.97) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.42)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(173.10) = 3.06, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.45)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(171.53) = -3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.43)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(158.18) = -3.43, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.74 to -0.47)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(157.07) = -2.40, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.39 to -0.13)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(157.62) = -3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.48)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(154.18) = -3.52, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.55 to -1.28)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(180.67) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.33)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(161.23) = -0.80, p = 0.846, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(156.05) = 1.40, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.61)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(163.56) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.47)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(159.43) = 0.99, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.89)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(157.39) = 0.99, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.75)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(166.82) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.46)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(154.20) = -1.43, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.43)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(158.40) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.07)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(158.22) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.89)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(156.50) = 1.35, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.03)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(153.87) = 1.28, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.96)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(155.22) = 1.31, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.64)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(155.40) = 1.73, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.15)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(159.94) = 1.86, p = 0.129, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.55)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(159.66) = -0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.32)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(158.54) = 1.22, p = 0.449, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.91)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(155.92) = 0.82, p = 0.824, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.78)

els

1st vs 2st

t(154.58) = 1.25, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.56)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(153.80) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.30)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(153.60) = 1.03, p = 0.612, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.18)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(156.80) = 1.67, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.28)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(153.69) = 1.46, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.35)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(176.64) = -0.70, p = 0.974, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.24)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(166.23) = 2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.56)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(161.87) = 2.09, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.63)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(162.63) = 2.52, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.37 to 3.03)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(157.38) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.66)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(170.27) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.83)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(168.84) = -1.36, p = 0.354, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.20)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(156.66) = -1.34, p = 0.363, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.20)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(155.64) = -2.09, p = 0.077, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.26 to -0.03)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(156.15) = -1.72, p = 0.174, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.08)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(153.00) = -1.97, p = 0.101, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.18 to 0.00)

Plot

Clinical significance